Significant Cases

Reversing the dismissal of a civil rights case arising out of a sixth-grade assistant principal’s “mass, suspicionless strip search of the underwear of twenty-two preteen girls” in an effort to find a missing $50, finding that the search violated the girls’ constitutional rights under Texas and federal law.

Successfully upholding judgment, under a clear and convincing evidence standard, terminating parental rights and imposing permanent injunction against a father convicted of child pornography, and placing the child with her grandparents.

Reversing summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case, finding that circumstantial creation evidence—evidence that the owner of a premises created the dangerous condition—can support an inference of knowledge on the part of the owner.

In a case of first impression, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed the right of a person who is wrongfully accused and later acquitted of a crime to have the records related to that arrest expunged—even though the person was also arrested on an unrelated offense, to which she pled guilty. In affirming the opinion of the Dallas Court of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the State’s “arrest based” interpretation, expressly disagreeing with numerous courts of appeals that had adopted this same interpretation. Instead, the Texas Supreme Court concluded that the statute’s plain language is not arrest-based and therefore does not prohibit the expunction of records related to an acquitted offense, even where the arrest includes another, unrelated offense.

Successfully defeated mandamus challenge seeking to prevent deposition of corporate president under the apex doctrine in catastrophic workplace injury case.

Successfully reversed summary judgment in favor of insured and insurer after defense counsel assigned by insurer agreed to settlement of claims but insured withdrew consent, where insurance policy was a non-consent policy which gave insurer unilateral right to settle case and insured no right to consent or, in this case, withdraw consent.

Successfully reversed summary judgment awarding law firm unpaid attorney’s fees based on law firm’s failure to conclusively establish the reasonableness of fees charged to its former client.

Successfully reversed court of appeals opinion in dispute over vicarious liability of drilling company for its employee’s conduct in driving drilling crew to and from drill site. Texas Supreme Court holds that “right to control” test is not an applicable or necessary part of the course-and-scope analysis once the employer-employee relationship is established.

Affirming judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case, and in the process refusing to apply Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.153’s willful and wanton negligence standard to emergency medical care provided in an obstetrical unit where the patient is not first evaluated in an emergency room.

Successfully defended medical providers’ appeal, challenging the plaintiff’s Chapter 74 expert reports in a case in which the medical providers’ negligence resulted in the amputation of the plaintiff’s leg.

Successfully challenged trial court’s grant of judgment notwithstanding a verdict following a jury trial in which the jury determined there to be no contract between BoRain and Hashmi. The court of appeals found that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict, reversed the trial court’s judgment, and rendered judgment that Hashmi take nothing.

Successfully defended summary judgment in favor of landlord for unpaid rent by commercial tenant who terminated lease early, but failed to pay full amount of rent owed. Tenant argued that landlord did not sufficiently mitigate its damages by giving new tenant first two months free, and therefore was not required to pay rent it owed for those months. The Dallas Court of Appeals rejected this argument.

In a case of first impression, the court of appeals affirmed an order granting the expunction of records relating to an arrest for felony aggravated assault for which T.S.N. was subsequently acquitted. The State, claiming that the entire expunction statute is “arrest based,” argued that the records could not be expunged because, when T.S.N. was arrested, she was also arrested on a totally unrelated misdemeanor theft charge to which she ultimately pled guilty. The court of appeals rejected this “arrest-based” interpretation, concluding that, based on the plain language of article 55.01(a)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a guilty plea to a wholly unrelated offense does not prohibit the expunction of records related to the acquitted offense, even where the arrest arises out of both.

Reversed and rendered judgment following permissive appeal, holding that section 74.153 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies a lower “willful and wanton” standard of care to medical care provided in a hospital emergency room does not apply to medical care provided an expectant mother in an obstetrical unit.

Successfully defended Texas and Louisiana courts’ determination that, while Texas court had jurisdiction as the child’s “home state” under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Louisiana court was the more convenient forum and therefore could exercise jurisdiction over child custody determination.

Dismissing appeal pursuant to vexatious litigant statute, where Hornbuckle repeatedly filed lawsuits contesting the foreclosure on a specific piece of real property in Arlington, Texas, including this case. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court’s dismissal of the underlying lawsuit was proper, and dismissal of Hornbuckle’s appeal was proper pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Ch. 11.

In appeal involving validity of abstract of judgment, court of appeals found that abstract filed under Hispanic judgment debtor’s maternal surname was sufficient to give notice of the judgment to the public.

In a personal injury case arising out of faulty construction of family’s new home, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment which dismissed the parents’ claims for failing to disclose the claims in bankruptcy. The court of appeals also reversed the trial court’s award of sanctions under the DTPA, finding that the children’s DTPA claims were not groundless.

In common law trademark case, upholding jury’s findings of secondary meaning, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, and award of lost profits, disgorged profits, and permanent injunctive relief.

In suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) in which grandparents sought managing conservatorship over the child, court of appeals concluded that the grandparents did not have standing to file the SAPCR because they did not have actual care and control over the child for the statutory required six months.

In a commercial fraud-by-nondisclosure case involving the development and operation a fried chicken franchise, Houston’s Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld the award of nearly $600,000 in damages–including $100,000 in exemplary damages.

Affirming trial court’s denial of City’s plea to the jurisdiction arising out of injuries suffered when a City of Houston police dog attacked and injured a minor. The court of appeals held that use of the police dog was not an intentional tort, but the negligent use of tangible personal property for which the Texas Tort Claims Act waived immunity.

Upholding a post-answer default judgment in a divorce proceeding, where the appellant attempted to challenge the judgment on due process grounds, but failed to file a motion for new trial or introduce evidence satisfying the Craddock factors.

Luig v. North Bay Enters., Inc., 817 F.3d 901 (5th Cir. 2016).

In a breach of contract case arising out of the sale of a helicopter, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court’s sua sponte grant of summary judgment against the buyer on a notice of revocation/rejection of acceptance issue never raised by the seller, finding that the District Court abused its discretion by not considering the evidence of rejection or revocation presented by the buyer in its Rule 59(e) motion.

Dismissing interlocutory appeal, originating from claim that collision with cow owned by a former doctor was really a health care liability case that required a Chapter 74 expert report, and sanctioning doctor and his attorney for refusing to dismiss frivolous appeal.

Successfully convinced court of appeals that housekeeper’s claim for injuries suffered when medical center employer required her to lift very heavy items was not a health care liability claim to which Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code applied.

Denying mandamus relief and requiring the production of electronically stored information in native or near native format.

Affirming almost the entirety of a judgment in excess of $800,000 in a nonsubscriber case against a negligent employer. In addition to raising the usual factual and legal sufficiency arguments regarding the liability and damage findings, the defendant also raised points relating to the financing of the medical expenses, the exclusion of certain evidence, improper jury argument, and charge error, all of which were overruled by the court of appeals.

Upholding a default judgment in favor of a personal injury plaintiff, where the defendant attempted to challenge the judgment through a bill of review more than four years after the judgment was entered, claiming extrinsic fraud in the manner in which substituted service was executed.

Affirming a $1.1 million judgment in favor of injured Kroger employee following an incident in which he lost four fingers on his dominant hand, and in the process rejecting Kroger’s arguments, among many others, that its duties should be limited to those owed by premises owners to invitees–meaning no duty to train or supervise, hire competent co-employees, provide appropriate instrumentalities, etc.–based on the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Austin v. Kroger.

Reversing trial court’s dismissal of a medical malpractice case, concluding that trial court abused its discretion in doing so and that the Chapter 74 expert report sufficiently demonstrated a causal relationship between the physician’s negligence and the death of Mr. Mitchell.

A custodian employed by a cleaning company was injured when an elevator malfunctioned in a nursing home facility where she was working; following the recent decision in Ross v. St. Luke’s, the court held there was no“substantive nexus” between Rodriguez’s claims relating to the nursing home’s maintenance of its elevator and Brazos Manor’s provision of health care.

In re Memorial Herman Hosp. Sys., 464 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. 2015)

Dr. Gomez brought suit against Memorial Hermann, his former employer, seeking damages caused by the hospital’s defamatory “whisper campaign” against him. The hospital claimed that all the relevant documents were protected by the medical peer review privilege; on mandamus, the Texas Supreme Court held that the “anticompetitive action” exception to the privilege applies, and ordered the vast majority of the documents produced.

Brown & Gay Eng’g, Inc. v. Olivares, 461 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. 2015)

Private engineering firm retained by a governmental entity to design and build a toll road asserted “derivative sovereign immunity” protects it from liability for a three-fatality accident caused by negligent design. The Supreme Court declined to expand the doctrine of governmental immunity to include government contractors, allowed the suit against the engineering firm to proceed.

Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero, 456 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. 2015)

Though, as expected, the court modernized the law to allow evidence of non-use of seat belts, ensured that such evidence needs to be supported by expert testimony; case remanded to court of appeals, with judgment intact, to determine whether defense evidence met Daubert standards.

In re Equipment Depot, Ltd., No. 14-0981 (Tex. Jan. 21, 2015)

Denial of emergency motion to stay and mandamus relief in a case in which the trial court granted a new trial based on its finding that the jury’s defense verdict was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.

Denial of petition for mandamus when the defendant challenged the trail court’s new trial order entered after the defendant asked the trial court to impose constitutional due process limitations to a punitive damages award.

Reversing jury verdict in legal malpractice case against law firm where client failed to present medical-expert testimony in support of damage causation

Blaylock v. Holland, 396 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2013, no pet.)

Reversing a trial court’s award of a homeowner’s property to his neighbor by adverse possession, holding that neighbor’s assumption that homeowner’s property was part of neighbor’s backyard, and neighbor’s use of that property as part of her backyard, was legally insufficient to support the trial court’s award by adverse possession.

Reversed and remanded; policyholder client’s failures to sit for examination under oath and to submit proof of claim in proper form did not entitle insurer to summary judgment, but rather only abatement.

Affirming a judgment for approximately $1 million based on findings of fraud, DTPA violations, and gross negligence, as well as a finding piercing the corporate veil, arising out of a contractor’s failed effort to repair a foundation that ruined a homeowner’s house.

Reversing a summary judgment concluding that a law firm failed to prove that attorney’s fees of over $1 million for just over 2 months of work in representing a small business was reasonable and necessary under the Arthur Anderson factors.

Goodner v. Hyundai Motor Co., 650 F.3d 1034 (5th Cir. 2011)

Upholding jury verdict in an automobile design defect case finding circumstantial evidence to support causation and sufficient evidence of an unreasonably dangerous design and of a safer alternative design.

Granting of motion to disqualify relator’s counsel on ground that counsel, a former justice, before leaving the bench had adjudicated a portion of the dispute in an earlier proceeding.

Rejecting John Deere’s argument that a discovery order covering multiple makes and models of equipment was overly broad and unduly burdensome and establishing that a defendant bears the burden of proving the bases for objections raised in discovery.

Affirming denial of a motion to dismiss based on a challenge to an expert report in a medical malpractice case.

Affirming denial of motion to dismiss based on challenge to an expert report in a medical malpractice case. Also holding that an expert need not opine as to willful and wanton negligence in a chapter 74 report despite argument that case is governed by the Emergency Room statute.